Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1887-11-07
THE WATERMAN TAN.
An Opinion by Attorney Riddle.

An Opinion by Attorney Riddle.
The District Commissioners have received from
Attorney Riddle communication in which he
says:
~ am in receipt OF a bundle OF cases burdened
with the Waterman taxa special assessment
and these turning upon the question, Must the as
sessment be made within thirty days from the
completion OF given work and immediate notice
given to the property-owners? had indorsed one
or two cases where cancellation OF a tax was
claimed for laches by the District in these respects
with adverse recommendations. These ind In
the present lot, an indication that more thorough
treatment OF the question Is desired Substantially
this question arose In Mcdonald VS. Lttleneld, and
the General Term decided 1t against my view.
That was an assessment for the improvement OF
streets under the 37th section act OF February 81
and the act OF August TO- 1871"
This act Mr.. Riddle quotes also, the act OF the
legislative assembly OF August 10, lS7l and says:
NOW, the claim was and so the court decided,
that within ten days OF this apportionment to a
given lot. notice must be given TO the owner, or
notice within the ten days is condition precedent,
falling which, the lot is exempt; that while law
exempting property Is strictly construed to pre-
vent an exemption, the law is literally construed
to work an exemption everywhere else. IL is said
This provision OF assessment and notice Is manda-
tory and must be strictly complied with Why is
II mandatory? How are We TO know mandatory
provision? know or nothing more waverIng and
uncertain than the line dividing Things mandatory
and , things directory, in statutes Courts seem 70
or the otner side OF doubtful cases. There are
abundance OF authorities, but none lays down a
rule OF easy application TO all cases"
After quoting certain authorities Nr. Riddle con.
tiDueS:
"Under these authorities we may say that all OF
the provisions OF the law which may be claimed 10
protect the rights OF the taxpayer must be COM
pied with by the municipality. This is the rule.
Look now 10 section three OF the act OF August 10
Tor It's application. The owner Is 10 have noJice
within ten days, alter which thirty days, for pay
ment. Failing that, certificate OF Indebtedness
issues This certificate alone bears interest, and
II Is this alone which attaches lien TO tue lot, so
that IL is Tor the interest or the owner-1rst tnat
the notice should never be given; second, tnat II
ever given II should De alter the l0ugesL possible
delay, for until given his property is free from
lien; he owes no debt and DO Interest can accrue
On what he does not owe. have the utmost re-
specJ Tor the supreme Court or the District, but
su persist that The provisions referred 10 are Tor
the protection or the District, and not for the pro-
lection OF real estate owners. They are not man-
dalory Uut direc iOry-advl,Ory.
"The act Of Marcn 3, 1862 authorized the late
corporation 10 asses property aDuLtlng street,
sLa!ments Under inis act the corporation or
Washington levied Seven-eights OF a cent on abut-
ting property, TO be collected by the water regis
tran In live equal Instruments. Notice OF assess
ment is not provided Tor. TINS substantially re-
nained the law till the act OF June & 1873. by the
District legislature"
Section OF this act In reference to notices Is
quoted ana the opinion says:
"Notice performs the same o1ice here as in the
act VI August TO- 1871. IL Is by notice only that
the assessment attaches, ana then IL may De
doubted whether IL becomes lien. The rirsL In
Stalinent cannot nor can any instalmenJ become
due, save by The potent touch OF notice. It Is
the interest or tue District and all other tax pay
ers, save him who would escape, that this notice
should be promptly given, as The Lay directs. IL
delsysd-neSer given Il Ts my opinion tina. tSe
District does not lose It's right 10 charge property
by reason OF detay in Inaking an assessment and
giving notice. where ownership is not changed
meantime.
Tue essential things for the protection Of the
intenled tax payer and which he can insist upon
are: The main must be laid according TO law. Inc
actual honest cost ascertained- This must De
justly apportioned TO all the property legally
cnargeable. The assessment must be made as tue
law directs. He must have notice. All these.
Yet whether this Just assessment, and actual
notice, within thirty days or thirty months so
long as no shadow or liability can be pI IO)ected
upon him or his property TILL the last act Is accom-
pished Is Of the least real moment.
Il Lnink, however. that where work has been
completed and abutting property sold after lapse
or the statutory time without notice, certifl-
cate or the collector OF no water the purchaser
would taAe IL Tree. The District loses. l do not
see any very direct provision OF law anywhere
that water tax becomes a lien, or that properly
can be sold for It's nOn-payment. All that seems
TO De matter OF tnrerence-impcation, though
have not very diligently inquired or tnaL point; IL
Is now only incidentally In slghi. This might be
supplied by an ordinance OF the Commissioners,
under cnapter VIII Revised Statutes, ID. c. knowl-
edge that the District Is laying main In front OF
his property cannot excuse lack or the statutory
notice I'D the owner. lie Is 10 nave nOtlce OF an
assessment on IT, and this before any liability at
tacneS, stated above. lceftainly should not re-
fund u Tax voluntarily paid by an owner who was
such wnen the main was laid, after laches
In assessment and notice by the District.
A tax paid by purchaser without notice, or VINO
purchased under q certificate OF no water tax,
would refund and to such a purchaser who paid
under a threat or having the water cut on, II SUCH
q case there be, the tax should De repaid. should
not refund To owner VINO paid under such a
threat where his claim rested soieiy on the ground
that he uid not get Immediate notice, even though
the assessment were not made within thirty
weeks after completion OF given work. These
rulings dispose OF the present batch OF cases which
you viii md inclOsed with my decision noted On
each.
81 confess to a mild surprise when q property
owner-a man OF stanulng-whose property has
been enhanced by a water-inain, whose safety,
health and nOurly comfort, with that or his family
are secured by constant supply OF good water,
and whose neighbOrs have paid their portion Of
the cost, VINO yet clamorS, goes TO law, TO escape
his just proportion OF this cost, because a tired
clerk or an overworked chief OF division for some
reason, did not assess his property within thirty
days and Immediately notify the ownerr When
the supreme Court OF the United states decides
that his property cannot De held shall acQuiesce
Whatever | may think OF the decision. / trust |
have placed this matter within the apprehension
OF the Commissioners"